revolt/protest is not the way to create change, because a government would simply employ its police to squash the rioters.. leading to civil war, not peaceful government change

what would need to happen isEG the police themselves go on strike and not aidUS had some protests/riots against the government, and thenactions of the people petitionICE immigration policy.. yet all that happened is police arrested the governmentagitators and invoke a new election/repeal of bad lawthe ICE policy remains

protests have never singularly/directly caused change. if you dig into history there has always been an underlying petition processwhen it comes to full blown revolts what would need to happen is the police themselves go on strike and not aid the government, but media will only promote/publishand then the visualspeople petition the government and invoke a new election/repeal of protestsbad law

as for protests, protests have never singularly/directly caused change. if you dig into history there has always been an underlying petition process, but media will only promote/publish the visuals of protests
this is because governments dont want to advertise the legal recourse of government change, they instead want people to waste time and create problems amongst themselves to make it look like the people are the dumb/uninformed so that the government can use those visuals as the reason to ignore peoples voices

.. take the american 'boston tea party'
with all of the visual drama of protests, throwing boxes of tea into the water and civil war.. what actually changed things in the end was an official petition

same with the suffragettes movement, it was not the chaining of women to fence posts that caused change, but a petition filed

however media will only talk about the visuals of protests to ensure the real route to government change is not popularised, to avoid frequent changes

Quote from: Majestic-milf on July 28, 2025, 11:04:40 AM

Quote from: Spaceman1000$ on July 28, 2025, 10:14:07 AM

Just as Democracy is been defined as the government of the people, by the people and for the people, if the structure of the governance system is not in tandem with the yearnings and aspiration of the people, the people can always revolt, Venezuela recently did it..

You're right, the people can always revolt or protest when the government they put in power isn't meeting up their desires

revolt/protest is not the way to create change, because a government would simply employ its police to squash the rioters.. leading to civil war, not peaceful government change

what would need to happen is the police themselves go on strike and not aid the government, and then the people petition the government and invoke a new election/repeal of bad law

protests have never singularly/directly caused change. if you dig into history there has always been an underlying petition process, but media will only promote/publish the visuals of protests

this is because governments dont want to advertise the legal recourse of government change, they instead want people to waste time and create problems amongst themselves to make it look like the people are the dumb/uninformed so that the government can use those visuals as the reason to ignore peoples voices

.. take the american 'boston tea party'
with all of the visual drama of protests, throwing boxes of tea into the water and civil war.. what actually changed things in the end was an official petition

same with the suffragettes movement, it was not the chaining of women to fence posts that caused change, but a petition filed

however media will only talk about the visuals of protests to ensure the real route to government change is not popularised, to avoid frequent changes

revolt/protest is not the way to create change, because a government would simply employ its police to squash the rioters.. leading to civil war, not peaceful government change

what would need to happen is the police themselves go on strike and not aid the government, and then the people petition the government and invoke a new election

protests have never singularly/directly caused change. if you dig into history there has always been an underlying petition process, but media will only promote/publish the visuals of protests

this is because governments dont want to advertise the legal recourse of government change, they instead want people to waste time and create problems amongst themselves to make it look like the people are the dumb/uninformed so that the government can use those visuals as the reason to ignore peoples voices

.. take the american 'boston tea party'
with all of the visual drama of protests, throwing boxes of tea into the water and civil war.. what actually changed things in the end was an official petition

same with the suffragettes movement, it was not the chaining of women to fence posts that caused change, but a petition filed

however media will only talk about the visuals of protests to ensure the real route to government change is not popularised, to avoid frequent changes